The “anyone but Cruz” hysteria grows to a crescendo

Hot Air ^ | December 2, 2015 | Jazz Shaw

[erod]

It is still early in the campaign (no votes have even been cast yet!) so whether he overtakes Trump or not (I’ll bet he eventually does), at least a consistent conservative is running against a nationalist conservative.,/i>

According, to many Trump supporters, the primary season is already over. They're already picking out his cabinet and not a single vote has been cast.

[papertyger]

First, you keep dodging my question with regard to Senate authority.

Next, defend Iran, how? Details like that are the very crux of any agreement, and how they are implemented can give tremendous latitude. Your insistence that something is fact does not make it so.

Furthermore, pontificating about deals when you’re neither a Trump, nor a government negotiator, to assign “conceit” is laughable.

Please answer question of why the Senate needed to cede its treaty powers to Obama to reverse it later.

[conservativejoy]

Obama was going to do the Iran deal without Congress. He has always called this an agreement, which the President has authority to do.

Defend Iran means militarily and by any other means; Shooting down Israeli bomber, taking out their missiles,

Comparing the Iran deal to real estate negotiations is idiotic.

[papertyger]

Now, you’re just equivocating. I’ve already outlined my questions about the “approved” narrative, so either you can’t answer, or won’t.

Either way, I’m not going to continue to argue with someone who doesn’t know enough to recognize they’ve lost.

[conservativejoy]

You’re asking me why Congress doesn’t do something. I could ask you the same thing, but I won’t since it is a dumb question. The reality they were dealing with was what President Obama intended to do with or without their approval.

I’m supporting a candidate with enough wisdom to tear up the Iran deal. You stick with your real estate negotiator.

[Dave W]

First, I know Trump can win Iowa, but the reality is the odds are against any one person winning that state.

Second, the polls in Iowa are historically inaccurate. Why is that? It is because no one really knows who is going to show up. As you know, you have to give up a whole evening. What if one of the kids is sick? What if you have to work late and the wife has no babysitter? I could go on, but you get the point.

Four years ago, Santorum was in fourth place in the polls, yet he won the Iowa caucus. Surprised everybody everywhere. He wasn't able to take advantage of it because he did not have enough money plus NH is much less conservative than Iowa.

I have read that Trump has hired true professionals in Iowa and has a decent ground game going. No matter who you are, it is tough making sure those who will vote for you show up. Reagan lost Iowa in 1980, but won NH - NH was much more conservative back then....before the invasion of those fleeing Massachusetts.

Four years ago, those who voted in the Iowa caucus, 40% were evangelicals and these people are the ones who put Santorum over the top in 2012 and put Huckabee (a former Baptist pastor) over the top in 2008. Interestingly, in a recent Iowa poll, 40% self identified as evangelicals and most of those were not supporting Trump. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that about 40% of evangelicals will make up the Iowa caucus on Feb. 1, 2016.

One thing Trump has going for him is the timing of the caucus. Four years ago, it was held just after New Year's - a week or so I think, so perhaps the more committed showed up and the more committed tend to be more conservative.

Feb. 1 will allow Trump more time to energize his supporters and to run ads. He has only one small ad buy, but I think that is a mistake. He needs to put more money in ads to better frame himself. Incredibly, a significant number of people believe these ads they see on tv, so perhaps Trump is waiting for the right time to spend ad money.

Regardless, NH is a much better state for Trump - much less conservative. The question is, if Trump loses Iowa, how will that affect the NH primary. He has been number 1 in the polls for 5 months and most believe he will win without understanding the underlying difficulties in Iowa. Could that burst the bubble and demoralize his soft supporters in NH, so they don't vote. My guess fwiw is no.

Also, national review had an article about a month ago analyzing the Iowa electorate (republican only). Surprisingly, it concluded that Iowa is very representative of the republican electorate. So, we shall see. There are always surprises.

So, if Trump takes 10% of the evangelical vote, that is only 4% of the biggest chunk of the voters. In this crowded field, Trump is not going to take 50% of the rest. That is preposterous. I urge you to review and study the results of the last two Iowa caucuses.

Trump will have to win more than 10% of the evangelical vote to win the state. I think he will win more than 10% of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he won 20 to 25% of the evangelical vote.

To me, there are two possibilities: 1) Rubio and Cruz splitting the evangelical and conservative vote allowing Trump to win or 2)Cruz attracting most of the conservative vote and Trump finishing #2. I don't think Trump finishing second will hurt him, but third could be deadly because of the negative media coverage that will follow.

We shall see.